Mars and Africa

Rand Simberg wrote:



Was invading Iraq a smart thing to do?



Yes.



I can think of the parents spouses, and children of around 2,449
American soldiers who might have second thoughts about the wisdom of it.
Also around 20,000 to 30,000 Iraqis (Bush wasn't sure of the exact
number in his speech, but what's 10,000 deaths this way or that?) who
may not of wholeheartedly supported our plan to liberate them in
retrospect.
The Iraqi's themselves also seem to be troubled by it, as 7% of the
nation's population filed for passports so they can just get out of the
place before even more hell breaks loose:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/19/news/exodus.php
So they're fleeing from the gift of democracy we gave them? That should
make all the neocons stop and think, shouldn't it?



No, it was a stupid thing to do...but he did it anyway.



You're certainly entitled to your stupid opinions.


Well, you how we chattering masses are.

Others' mileage
varies.



Ah, yes...record gas prices at the same time as record oil company
profits, and coincidentally an oil man as president.
A connection to the war in Iraq?:
http://www.maconareaonline.com/news.asp?id=10198
And remember that secret conference that Cheney had with the big oil
companies long before 9/11 that they wouldn't release the minutes to
under executive privilege?:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/iraqi-oilfield-pr.shtml

Pat

On Fri, 19 May 2006 15:45:30 -0400, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Was invading Iraq a smart thing to do?



Yes.



I can think of the parents spouses, and children of around 2,449
American soldiers who might have second thoughts about the wisdom of it.

So? Some do, some don't. Either way, it has zero relevance as to
whether or not it actually was wise. Otherwise, there have never been
any wise wars, since all wars have casualties with family members, all
of whom wish they had them back. This is a monumentally dumb
argument.

The Iraqi's themselves also seem to be troubled by it, as 7% of the
nation's population filed for passports so they can just get out of the
place before even more hell breaks loose:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/19/news/exodus.php
So they're fleeing from the gift of democracy we gave them? That should
make all the neocons stop and think, shouldn't it?

It might, if it weren't counterbalanced by all the people going back
to Iraq, as well as other positive indicators (the best for the nation
in decades).

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Pr...aheri_0606.htm

Rand Simberg wrote:

I can think of the parents spouses, and children of around 2,449
American soldiers who might have second thoughts about the wisdom of it.



So? Some do, some don't. Either way, it has zero relevance as to
whether or not it actually was wise.


Yeah, they're just people, who cares?
There is an implied agreement between the government and military
personal of the United States: They are willing to fight and die for us
assuming that we send them into battle for a just and honest purpose
that is necessary for the defense of our nation.
You don't trump up evidence of a Iraqi nuclear program that strangely UN
inspectors can't seem to find any evidence of, then ship them off to war
with no idea when they're coming home (if ever; the neocons want to
build permanent U.S. bases in Iraq to assure an American military
presence in the heart of the Mideast oil region) and happily show up on
an aircraft carrier stating "Mission Accomplished, major combat as
ended!" when there are still 4/5ths of the casualties to go.

Otherwise, there have never been
any wise wars, since all wars have casualties with family members, all
of whom wish they had them back. This is a monumentally dumb
argument.



When the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor, and the Germans promptly
declared war on us, that was a wise war to get into.
Even the first Gulf War was wise, as one of our allies was attacked and
we took the time and effort to build a collation between our allies and
then go in, chase the Iraqis out, destroy a large part of the Iraqi
military, and come home in short order.
The President got cheered in Congress at the end of that war, because he
was smart enough to leave it to the military and have well-established
goals in mind rather than some diffuse idea of "bringing democracy to
the Mideast at gunpoint" that the military thought was crazy from day one.
Then there's that great photo of Rumsfeld and his good buddy Saddam:
http://www.awolbush.com/rumsfeld_saddam.jpg
You know if Iraq is connected to Al-Queda and 9/11 due to the fact that
some Al-Queda members visited Iraq, then we had better have a real close
look at Rumsfeld; this guy not only visited Iraq, he hobnobbed with The
Evil One himself, and supplied him with weapons.



The Iraqi's themselves also seem to be troubled by it, as 7% of the
nation's population filed for passports so they can just get out of the
place before even more hell breaks loose:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/19/news/exodus.php
So they're fleeing from the gift of democracy we gave them? That should
make all the neocons stop and think, shouldn't it?



It might, if it weren't counterbalanced by all the people going back
to Iraq, as well as other positive indicators (the best for the nation
in decades).

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Pr...aheri_0606.htm


I love your choice of source material: The New York Times? Not likely.
The Times Of London? Forget it.
Washington Post? Uh-uh. The Wall Street Journal, fer chrisakes (a hotbed
of far-left thought if there ever was one)? No way.
Nope, for the straight poop on the situation in Iraq, go to Commentary
magazine, published by The American Jewish Committee.
We all know that American Jews have completely unbiased opinions
regarding Iraq, and the fact that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was considered
the single greatest military threat to the survival of Israel would
never color their attitude regarding how political aspects of the
situation in Iraq should be handled in regards to any possible WMDs.
When we invaded Iraq, we did Israel the biggest favor it ever had; we
fought a war for it without it having to lift a finger.*
I assume that the present situation regarding Iran and our seemingly
helpless stand against a pretty damn obvious nuclear weapons program is
that we feel it is now time for Israel to return the favor we did it. Or
just go away and leave us alone in our Iraqi misery.
So who is Amir Taheri? He's a speaker for Benador Associates.
And who pray tell, are Benador Associates?
They are a public relations firm who will ship you Neoconservative speakers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benador_Associates ....packed in moist peat
moss to keep them fresh until they arrive- unfortunately as you can see
by the list of speakers, a lot of the Neocons are actually Paleocons as
far as age goes, so don't expect them to arrive in any too fresh of
condition by any means.
As for Taheri himself, he's of Iranian extraction, so we know that he
has completely unbiased views toward Saddam Hussein's Iraq, despite the
fact that Saddam invaded his country and killed around 134,000 of his
fellow Iranians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir_Taheri
He also wrote something yesterday that torqued off a lot of people:
http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/68837.htm
.....this appearing in that renowned journal of international politics
that is the New York Post.
I know it's not The Canada Free Press, but it tries. :-)

* Israel's way of saying "thanks" was a little odd; they promptly
started selling Harpy antiradar drones to the Red Chinese who might need
them at some point down the line in case a certain piece of offshore
real estate become silly and does a goofy thing like proclaim its
independence from China.
From there they headed toward Venezuela to upgrade Mr. Commie's F-16s.
But we said "What The ****?!" on that one, so now the South American Red
Menace is thinking of selling them to...you guessed it...Iran.

Pat

On Sat, 20 May 2006 10:14:49 -0400, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg wrote:

I can think of the parents spouses, and children of around 2,449
American soldiers who might have second thoughts about the wisdom of it.



So? Some do, some don't. Either way, it has zero relevance as to
whether or not it actually was wise.


Yeah, they're just people, who cares?

The issue isn't about whether or not we care. Every death of our
soldiers in war is a tragedy.

There is an implied agreement between the government and military
personal of the United States: They are willing to fight and die for us
assuming that we send them into battle for a just and honest purpose
that is necessary for the defense of our nation.

There's no evidence that anything other than that occurred.

[standard Bush derangement and ad hominem attack on Amir Tehari
snipped]

On or about Wed, 17 May 2006 06:16:13 -0400, Rand Simberg made the sensational claim that:
Pat Flannery wrote:
It was Libby BTW.

Who cares?

People who like to see the law respected. Which wouldn't include Bush and
his supporters evidently.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen

On or about Sat, 20 May 2006 10:14:49 -0400, Pat Flannery made the sensational claim that:
You don't trump up evidence of a Iraqi nuclear program that strangely UN
inspectors can't seem to find any evidence of

A former head of Mossad was on the Daily Show a couple weeks ago saying he
felt that it was entirely possible those WMD's were actually there, and giving
an example of a whole squadron of fighters the Iraqis had buried to avoid having
them shot down. Why an Israeli intelligence officer would buy into the whole
Iraqi WMD thing is left as an exercise for the reader.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen

Rand Simberg wrote:

Don't stupidly confuse inarticulateness with inability to understand
words. He got an MBA from Harvard. Did you?

http://www.thum.org/oxon/archives/000564.html

On Tue, 23 May 2006 06:41:35 -0400, in a place far, far away,
LooseChanj made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

On or about Wed, 17 May 2006 06:16:13 -0400, Rand Simberg made the sensational claim that:
Pat Flannery wrote:
It was Libby BTW.

Who cares?

People who like to see the law respected.

I'm one of those people, but the only thing that Libby has been
indicted for was lying to a grand jury, which has nothing to do with
Dick Cheney's notes. I'm still waiting for this to turn into a real
story.

Pat Flannery wrote:

Ah, yes...record gas prices at the same time as record oil company
profits, and coincidentally an oil man as president.
A connection to the war in Iraq?:

Probably not.

If your markup is 5% over costs, you'll have record profits everytime
your costs increase when your market is essentially guaranteed.

But that takes thinking - something you are markedly incapable of
doing of the topic is Bush.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Mon, 22 May 2006 12:46:37 -0400, in a place far, far away,
h (Rand Simberg) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

There is an implied agreement between the government and military
personal of the United States: They are willing to fight and die for us
assuming that we send them into battle for a just and honest purpose
that is necessary for the defense of our nation.

There's no evidence that anything other than that occurred.

Myths debunked:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110008415